Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Dec 3, 2012 9:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

On the other hand, the quote is the quote we have. From the whole conversation, long or short as it may have been, these few quotes are all that were publicly preserved. The writer may have taken lots of quotes out of context, twisted them around for his story, etc - but as far as what we have on record, this quote is what stands for now. (After all there are plenty of Jerry-isms, often quoted out of context, that stand for his Eternal Thoughts...)

There have been some more allegations that the writer was not entirely truthful with his quoting... On the Further/DSO forums there has been some rather hostile discussion of the article, particularly about Eaton's comments on DSO vs. the Dead.
Rob Barraco (DSO member) wrote, "I have to say, I was a fly on the wall during this interview. That guy that wrote the article is a hater. Eaton did not say that. He took everything out of context. What a bunch of horse shit."
Another DSO member, who also strongly disliked the article, wrote on the Philzone forum, "Eaton agreed to an interview with this writer to talk about tapes and his knowledge and involvement in the taping world. The interview took part during the day where I'm sure the interviewer was taking notes. Later that night after the show while kicking back a few beers with this guy, Rob ostensibly said the quotes from the article, and it was at a point when Rob thought the interview was over. He thought he was just hanging out with this guy. The interviewer wasn't taking notes or recording the conversation. It could have only been later when the writer eventually wrote down what he could hope to remember of what Rob actually said and interpret what he thought Eaton meant from this writer's own skewed view point. I'm fairly certain Rob was misquoted on most of his supposed statements."

Which is another way of saying what you're saying!....

This post was modified by light into ashes on 2012-12-04 05:30:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 3, 2012 10:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

LOL. Classic strategy. That's actually recommended in classes on in-depth feature writing, "New Journalism" style. Seriously. Even the part about beers and not taking notes, which supposedly Truman Capote had down to an art. Personally I think if it's between quote marks, you better have it on tape or in your notebook, but hey, that's just me. And for all we know he dashed into the bathroom and scribbled the "f*ing your girlfriend" quote down frantically. Which Eaton maybe thought was a funny way to describe it after a few beers, and the writer thought was bitter. Ah, the fickle nature of perception.

But really, I'm surprised Eaton was that naive. If you're with a journalist on a story, the journalist isn't ever "off." Now, the reporter might decide to play nice and not write down the great quotes you hand over on a platter after a few beers. But if Eaton didn't say that he wanted the whole evening to be off the record, it wasn't. (I do know of people getting messed over by reporters who say it's off the record and isn't. Which is incredibly unethical. It happened to a friend of mine who was being interviewed by the NY Times. Charming. But if Eaton DIDN'T say it, it was all on the record, legitimately, IMO, and he should have known it.)

Btw, I loved the part about Phil not understanding "Scar Fire." Have you ever heard it called that? It sounds like preppy slang to me, although it might be incredibly common. I don't really know. But I'm imagining old hard-of-hearing Phil hearing the guy say "Do you remember that awesome skerrfur?" and holding up his ear trumpet and asking what the guy said, and the writer scribbles it down (or doesn't) and thinks to himself, "excellent moment! Phil doesn't know Scarlet > Fire!"



This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2012-12-04 06:10:29

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Dec 3, 2012 10:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"'Scar-Fire?' he repeated, unfamiliar with the shorthand..."

No, I don't think it's the common abbreviation. I vote for preppy slang.
One of the commenters on the "Nick's Picks" page points out:
"I will echo a previous comment: "Scar > Fire" rather than "Scarlet > Fire"? Who in Dead circles says this? This native NYC Deadhead now living in San Francisco for the past 26 years never had heard it before reading your article. Phil Lesh seemed thrown as well by the abbreviation when you spoke to him. He wasn't "unfamiliar with the shorthand" as you state; he just considers it "Scarlet > Fire" like the rest of us."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 3, 2012 10:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Or it went like this:

"Scar-Fire?" he repeated, wondering if that was a theater in Scarsdale.

Or, "Scruffier?" he repeated, wondering if that night's show was particularly hairy.

Or, "Scarfer?" he repeated, wondering if it had to do with people who just came to the show for the burritos.

Maybe Weir would have been more up on preppy slang.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 3, 2012 9:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

There are Furthur/DSO forums?That is very funny.I wonder what Phil thinks when he listens to his vocal take on the bands music since Jerry died,or how he would explain the dichotomy of his musical efforts where on the one hand he is trying to play the catalog in a new and evolving manner with an array of different musicians with different ideas on how to play it,balanced against a sad rehashing of the music with a hack tribute band guitarist and Weir.I am always bemused when the remaining members show such disdain for their back catalog,yet they continue to play the same songs in a similar manner,Furthur being a prime example.I really don't care about Billy or Mickey's feelings on the subject,Billy seems like he was in different band from the one we all listen to and Mickey is irrelevant.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 4, 2012 9:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"..... how he would explain the dichotomy of his musical efforts where on the one hand he is trying to play the catalog in a new and evolving manner with an array of different musicians with different ideas on how to play it,balanced against a sad rehashing of the music with a hack tribute band guitarist and Weir."

Exactly.
Phil always speaks with grandeur on what it is he's up to musically but the reality of it never matches up.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 4, 2012 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Yes sir Reade,you would think he is creating new and exciting music as opposed to playing Dark Star -> My Favorite Things ->Dark Star poorly with Trey and Mike Gordon or some limp shit with his marginally talented sons. He should really listen back to the awful stuff he's been a part of since Jerry died,never mind the Europe 72' release.His vocals alone are so offensive as to be shameful,Keith Richards laughs at him.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 5, 2012 8:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"He should really listen back to the awful stuff he's been a part of since Jerry died,never mind the Europe 72' release."
OK- hilarious!

Both he and Weir, at different times, have tried to distinguish in interviews between what they're doing and this whole genre of cover bands. Phil in particular has characterized his efforts as 'reinterpreting' the music, and it always makes me think he's trying to call up the ghost of John Coltrane, or at least the jazz genre, by putting it that way. As a way of selling it.

But the music never bears out, to my ears, this distinction they wish existed between what they're doing and being a cover band. Of course that may be because there isn't one?

Your take on Phil's vocal's is a breath of fresh air. It has seemed like a taboo subject around here. My god what is up with that? It has always puzzled me. I think I get it a little bit dating back to the early days: it was the late sixties, they were making mind-bending music, breaking rules and needed someone on stage to provide the high end of the harmony parts. But after 1969 or so it's just mystifying. Jerry used to love to mention how Phil had 'perfect pitch.' While not deeply steeped in music terminology, I know enough about what that phrase means to suggest it should enable him to listen to tapes and hear himself!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Dec 5, 2012 11:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Great posts, I agree with both of you. A lot of non-fans are really put off by Phil's vocals.

As to perfect pitch- that can have a different interpretation. A person with perfect pitch can hear a note played by any instrument, and say, "that's a B flat." And conversely, when told a piece starts on D, can hum or sing that D unaided by any previously heard note. As to Phil's perfect pitch - he may have sung the pitch correctly on many occasions, but screaming or yelling at the mike, his phrasing and overall technique was more akin to a sheep bleating.

People with perfect pitch are extremely rare.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 5, 2012 11:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"A lot of non-fans are really put off by Phil's vocals"

A LOT of FANS are also really put off by his vocals. I was one of those happy Hampton fools applauding when they broke out Box of Rain, but it sure wasn't for his vocals. The only thing I can really point to other than the studio version of Box of Rain that I like is Pride of Cucamonga.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 5, 2012 9:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

I simply don't understand how at any point in time he could listen to himself sing and not realize how poor a singer he is,there is not one single instance in the breadth of their career where Phil sings well.I understand they had a need for for someone to sing high end harmonies,but he certainly didn't fit the bill,I can't think of any other band that has someone so ill suited to singing doing harmony vocals.The fact that today he has the nerve to take the lead vocal spot is just perplexing.

I don't so much have a problem with them playing their music however they see fit,I just get bent when they seem to disrespect what was for what they are doing now.I think it's sad that the poor excuse for GD music their current projects are putting out there going to represent their legacy to a generation of people not familiar with the real deal.

I hear you on the whole "reinterpreting" deal,it must be difficult to live in Jerry's shadow and try to play that music without him.Especially since for the most part they fail miserably and produce a weak approximation of what once was special,no matter what the line up or take on the music is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 5, 2012 11:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

It *is* difficult (or impossible) to play in Jerry's shadow which is why I've never understood why they don't tear a page from his playbook and explore other musical avenues with their outside pursuits.

When Jerry teamed with others the very point was to depart from GD music, and often in bold, adventurous ways. I mean he didn't get with Howard Wales to 'reinterpret' Friend of the Devil. The Old and In the Way thing was to explore an entirely different genre of music, and one very difficult to play. He was pushing himself and growing with his outside ventures. The early JGB lineups featured Merl Saunders of course, who Garcia credited late in his life with teaching him more about music than anybody! The acoustic 1987 JGB and his collaboration with Grisman in the early nineties were strict acoustic adventures though not bluegrass so again, a different genre.

He wasn't passing time with these endeavors (or worse, making cracks about how he needed the extra coin to send his kids to college). They were intentional efforts at musical growth. It's this very example he set that makes his bandmates efforts without him since '95 so hollow.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 5, 2012 2:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

I don't think Bob or Phil had the creative drive or desire to branch out as much as Jerry did,while Bob had a number of side projects over the years and Phil had the bar band he played a few gigs with during the hiatus their main creative avenue was the GD.

In fairness to Bob and Phil while Jerry was alive there was always a GD,so he was never faced with a situation where he didn't have that outlet to play the GD catalog,so he could focus his outside energies exploring a variety of different styles and music.Presented with a scenario of no GD,I would assume he would still have wanted to perform some of his GD compositions.I think he would have been more successful at puling that off.

As usual UJ52 you come through with the goods.A nice explanation on the definition of the term pitch,tied into why it matters not in relation to Phil's ability to sing or lack thereof,plus a funny and somewhat true comparison to what his vocal sounded like "sheep bleating".

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 5, 2012 3:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

While many variables apparently go into whether or not a guy can carry a tune, as UJ52 points out, there has got to be at least some disconnect- or irony at least -involved with a guy who can correctly identify any note played by any instrument at any time (very rare ability as UJ52 also points out) but not be able to hear himself sounding like a farm animal.
To paraphrase Mick, I'm no schoolboy (when it cones to these musical terms) but I know what I hear.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 5, 2012 4:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Good point,both funny and ironic.